| ▲ | negzero7 5 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | speedgoose 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Perhaps people can decide by themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams#Political_views |
| |
| ▲ | carimura 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Or in his own words.... many many many hours of them https://www.youtube.com/RealCoffeeWithScottAdams https://scottadams.locals.com/landing/video | |
| ▲ | negzero7 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Using wikipedia as the arbiter of truth is ridiculous. The man spoke about all sorts of things for an hour a day, almost every single day for years - to boil down his thoughts and opinions to 4 paragraphs that other people wrote is asinine. | | |
| ▲ | simonw 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you have a better link that can help people understand the gist of his political opinions that isn't Wikipedia? | | | |
| ▲ | faefox 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe you could share some of his well-reasoned positions with us, then? :) | |
| ▲ | BobaFloutist 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well I'm certainly not going to spend thousands of hours listening to his talking to decide how to feel about his thoughts and opinions. | | |
| ▲ | negzero7 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's fair, but also maybe don't base an opinion on 4 paragraphs from wikipedia on topics obviously nuanced. | | |
| ▲ | rbanffy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I would imagine whoever wrote those 4 paragraphs has researched a lot more than I did about his political views. If someone with better sources went there and corrected any mistakes made previously, with referenced demonstrating it, the article would be much improved. | | |
| ▲ | hulitu 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I would imagine whoever wrote those 4 paragraphs has researched a lot more than I did about his political views We all have imagined that. But taking a look at the sources in Wikipedia articles becomes ... interesting. | | |
| |
| ▲ | BobaFloutist 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What should I base it on? You? | | |
| ▲ | negzero7 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You don't need to have an opinion on everything. Clearly you don't care about this or you would spend the time watching some of his videos or reading his articles that expound on his "controversial" statements. It's ok to just say "I don't know" rather than thinking you're well informed because Wikipedia says so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kemiller2002 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No, his comments about race and supporting political groups that advertise oppression and hate have not and will not be simply categorized as a political view. There are universal truths and morals that do not change and simply saying we have different views does not excuse violating those. |
| |
| ▲ | pc86 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I hope this isn't too off topic but one of the key underpinnings of, for lack of a better word, capital-D Democratic / liberal (/ leftist-ish?) ideology in the US is that there is not a universal truth governing reality. Watch any debate where "objective truth" gets brought up and more than half the time the response won't be disagreeing with that truth but that the entire idea of an objective, universal truth is faulty. | | |
| ▲ | dsr_ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > the entire idea of an objective, universal truth is faulty. Which is the key aspect of authoritarianism: power is expressed by stating their opinions -- even, indeed, especially, insincere opinions -- as fact. | | |
| ▲ | pc86 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Maybe, but I'm not sure authoritarianism has anything to do with what we're discussing here unless I'm wrong |
| |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the issue isn't whether there's an "objective truth", but it's obvious that some things are truer than others. I often find that people who argue against objective truth are actually trying to push a viewpoint that has little to no evidence to support it whilst they also try to deny a different viewpoint which does happen to have some decent evidence. |
| |
| ▲ | raymond_goo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Every studied history? A little. Broadly, the things that historical people considered "good" and "bad" are still considered "good" and "bad" today – discounting brief thousand-year fads (which largely boil down to how and whether to signal allegiance with particular ways of organising society). > Do you eat factory farmed animals? So you, too, understand that factory-farming animals is wrong – and that many people eat factory-farmed animals despite knowing that it's wrong, because very few people are paragons of moral virtue. > Currently some leftist group is trying to justify Female Genital Mutilation. You believe that leftist groups in some sense "should" be more moral than… I'm guessing the comparison is "rightist groups", perhaps the various contemporary fascist governments. But you've correctly pointed out that FGM is wrong, and that identifying with a contemporary political label or ideology does not automatically mean you're in the right. I fail to understand why you think this is a gotcha. Your comment only functions as a gotcha if we all broadly agree on what's right and what's wrong. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | regularization 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Like trying to treat his cancer with ivermectin? Doesn't seem to have worked. |
| |
| ▲ | tasuki 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How many times did you have terminal cancer? My girlfriend died of cancer. She was 30 years old and we had a toddler. No matter how rational you start, terminal cancer diagnosis throws much rationality out the window. | | |
| ▲ | overfeed 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > No matter how rational you start, terminal cancer diagnosis throws much rationality out the window. Doctors who get cancer typically stay level-headed. I wish society talked about death and mortality more often and openly, most people are ill-equiped to face it square on, and yet its the one thing that is truly universal. Humanity needs sex-ed, but for dying. | | |
| ▲ | bombcar 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Humanity needs sex-ed, but for dying. I mean, we had that and threw it away; centuries of memento mori in various cultures and religions | |
| ▲ | hulitu 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I wish society talked about death and mortality more often and openly, They do. For example "US army sunk a boat with drug traffickers, killing everyone." see Banality of evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem | | |
| ▲ | overfeed 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Use of passive voice doesn't help anyone grapple with one's mortality. I specifically meant in the context of contemplating our own mortality, and not that of others - which is closer to death porn and not death sex-ed (learning how to do it ourselves) |
|
| |
| ▲ | NoSalt 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree 100%. If I received a terminal cancer diagnosis, I would be willing to do almost anything to live longer. | | |
| ▲ | BrandoElFollito 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would not. At some point this becomes agony, this is the reason I have a suicide plan in place for a long time alredy, despite being in perfect health. It's not when you need it that you start googling around | | |
| ▲ | tasuki 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | FWIW, modern medicine is very good at making the pain go away, if you opt for it. | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So much this. They gave my mom an effectively unlimited supply of opiates when the time called for it, and we convinced her that it was perfectly OK and good to use them. One need not suffer without help, unless that happens to be personally important to them. Like, I can imagine religious objections, maybe, or perhaps an addict who wants to “go out clean” knowing that they beat the cravings. But if those don’t apply, pain meds are good and plentiful now. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kstrauser 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am truly sorry for your loss. That must’ve been a nightmare, and I can imagine someone exploring outside their usual lines in such a situation. I hope you and your child are well now. | | |
| ▲ | tasuki 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thank you, yes we are well! Things have only been getting better for several years now :) |
|
| |
| ▲ | caminante 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Snark aside, he got his doctor's approval first and acknowledged it didn't work after. Also, it shows promise in oncology, but doesn't have mature studies. [0] [0] https://cancerchoices.org/therapy/ivermectin/ | | |
| ▲ | cthalupa 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know that I would call en vitro studies promising. Cancer would be long be a solved problem if even a tenth of the stuff that kills cancer cells in a petri dish was viable in humans. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not just *in vitro. Per article (and not arguing it's effective for human oncology), there are also studies with mice showing effectiveness. | | |
| ▲ | cthalupa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, there's a few. But 3 rodent studies isn't exactly enough evidence for a layperson to worry about, either. It's not even much of a signal for scientists in that area of research. Ivermectin is pretty safe for people to use regardless of whether or not they have parasites, so sure, do the human RCTs. Maybe we'll get lucky and have another tool in our anti-cancer toolbox. But trying to extrapolate out that it's reasonable for people to take it for cancer based on the current evidence is premature, at best. | |
| ▲ | gus_massa 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | During peak covid-19 I read a lot of ivermectin studies posted in HN. Most were just horrible, with obvious mistakes. If you pick one, I can give a try to roast it. | | |
| ▲ | cthalupa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My personal quick rubric for determining if an ivermectin study showing improvement for cv19 outcomes is likely to be trustworthy: Was the population being studied one where parasite infections that ivermectin can take care of are endemic? Yes - improves outcomes in this population because many of them are likely to have parasites and killing them reduces strain on the body and frees up immune system resources to deal with covid No - you'll find glaring flaws even in a quick once-over. Hasn't failed me yet. | |
| ▲ | caminante 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fire away at the one in the link above. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | DanielleMolloy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | He tried for a month, next to his regular treatments and then called Makis who is currently promoting it a quack. |
|
|
| ▲ | cm2012 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Scott did have a lot of really thoughtful articles, but its also true he become much less rational and much more identity based on his reasoning over the last 3-5 years. |
|
| ▲ | cthalupa 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Scott Adams said that Republicans would be hunted down and that there would be a good chance they would all be dead if Biden was elected and that the police would do nothing to stop it. Dilbert was brilliant. Adams' political discourse after that became his primary schtick was quite frequently insane. |
|
| ▲ | dyauspitr 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Advocating for physical oppression of broad groups and races is not a political view much as you want to normalize it. It’s the same reason all the right’s effort to lionize Charlie Kirk just won’t take, much to their chagrin. |
|
| ▲ | afavour 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > In a 2006 blog post, Adams asked if official figures of the number of deaths in the Holocaust were based on methodologically sound research. In 2023, Adams suggested the 2017 Unite the Right rally was "an American intel op against Trump." > After a 2022 mass shooting, Adams opined that society leaves parents of troubled teenage boys with only two options: to either watch people die or murder their own son https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams Maybe “insanity” is strong but I do not think anyone who holds beliefs like those is thinking straight. Toying with Holocaust denial is not simply “having different opinions to you”. |
| |
|
| ▲ | claaams 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What did he mean when he said this well reasoned opinion? “When a young male (let’s say 14 to 19) is a danger to himself and others, society gives the supporting family two options: 1. Watch people die. 2. Kill your own son. Those are your only options. I chose #1 and watched my stepson die. I was relieved he took no one else with him.” “If you think there is a third choice, in which your wisdom and tough love, along with government services, ‘fixes’ that broken young man, you are living in a delusion. There are no other options. You have to either murder your own son or watch him die and maybe kill others.” That’s surely from the calm rational mind of someone not filled with resentment and hate right? |
| |
| ▲ | negzero7 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's certainly not filled with hate or resentment. Scott spoke at length about his stepson's death and it was always with sadness and regret. | | |
| ▲ | overfeed 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Scott Adams also was a self-professed libertarian - he offered no prescription on what additional options society could provide to families of troubled kids. |
| |
| ▲ | like_any_other 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Some context? What exactly happened with his son, and I assume he elaborated on what those two options mean, or what specifically they were in his case? |
|
|
| ▲ | quietsegfault 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is not about disliking “different opinions” or refusing to hear opposing views. It is about a documented pattern of statements in which Adams moved from commentary into explicit endorsement of collective punishment, racialized generalizations, and norm breaking prescriptions that reject basic liberal principles. Being “aware of both sides” means engaging evidence and counterarguments in good faith. Repeatedly dismissing data and framing entire groups as inherently hostile is not that. Calling this out is not echo chamber behavior, it is a substantive judgment based on what was actually said, not on ideological disagreement. |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | fao_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Scott had well reasoned opinions and was consistently aware of both sides of issues and news. [citation needed] Here are my own citations: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams "In a 2006 blog post (which has since been deleted), Adams flirted with Holocaust denialism, questioning whether estimates of the number of people killed during the Holocaust are reliable [...] If he actually wanted to know where the figures come from, he could have looked on Wikipedia or used his Internet skills to Google it or even asked an expert as he once recommended" "Just 3 hours after the 2019 Gilroy Garlic festival mass shooting, Adams attempted to profit off of it by trying to sign up witnesses for a cryptocurrency-based app that he co-founded called Whenhub.[58][59][60]" "After being yanked from newspapers due to racism, Adams moved his operations to a subscription service on Locals. While Adams continued to create a "spicier" version of Dilbert "reborn" on that site, Adams' focus shifted towards "political content". His Locals subscription included several livestreams with "lots of politics" as well as a comic called Robots Reading News, with a little bit of alleged self-help media content as well.[73] His Twitter feed also increasingly focused on angry MAGA politics.[74]" "Adams continued to believe Donald Trump's Big Lie and maintained that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was rigged. In March 2024, when Adams falsely suggested that US "election systems are not fully auditable and lots of stuff goes 'missing' the day after the election", the Republican Recorder of Maricopa County Stephen Richer explained that US elections actually were fully auditable, and gave some information on the actual process officials use for auditing elections.[82]" |
|
| ▲ | deadbabe 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wow, what a scathing retort. I hope the original poster realizes he was staring into the abyss for so long it started staring back into him. |
|
| ▲ | MrBuddyCasino 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| His body isn’t even cold yet and the character assassinations are already pouring in. The „empathy havers“, allegedly. |
| |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People have been talking about this for years. And there's no lack of empathy in immediately discussing the legacy of a public figure, on a site far away from anyone that's personally affected. | |
| ▲ | plagiarist 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't understand why anyone would extend empathy and tolerance towards someone who would not reciprocate. I think you should temper your expectations here. | |
| ▲ | hulitu 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Since some years, we call this dialogue. Other, evil people, call it canceling /s |
|